Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

NYPD Announcing They Are Investigating Someone Who May Have Been Part Of The Riot; House Democrats Are Set To Formally Unveil Their Resolution To Impeach President Trump; Democrats Are Urging Mike Pence To Invoke The 25th Amendment; President Trump To Speak Today To Condemn The Violence And Ask For Peaceful Transition. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired January 11, 2021 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:01:00]

POPPY HARLOW, CNN HOST: Top of the hour, good morning everyone. We're glad you're with us, I'm Poppy Harlow.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: And I'm Jim Sciutto. Just moments from now House Democrats are set to formally unveil their resolution to impeach President Trump for an unprecedented second time.

CNN has just obtained a copy of that single impeachment article. We have it here. It charges the president with citing an insurrection after the deadly riots at the capital following his words encouraging those people to march to the Capitol.

Also, it cites his repeated false claims that he won the election and his call to the Georgia Secretary of State asking to him to find votes.

HARLOW: It's so hard to watch that over and over again, but before impeachment moves forward the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is asking to the vice president to remove the president by invoking the 25th Amendment and declaring the president incapable of performing his duties.

Let's go to Manu Raju who he joins us on Capitol Hill. Good morning Manu. That is pretty unlikely, right, that Pence is going to do that? If he doesn't what are we expecting today?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We expect it to move pretty quickly today. The formal introduction of that article of impeachment, incitement of an insurrection, that is the only article that is listed in that resolution that the Democrats plan to vote on potentially as soon Wednesday, maybe it slips into Thursday, but they plan to move pretty quickly even though there are just a few days left in this president's term. The call today will be by Democrats to urge Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment to try to push the president out of office. Pence is not indicating that is what he plans to do, but expect a floor fight over that this morning. And then afterwards Democrats will have a -- discuss on a conference call about their next steps.

Expect a lot of discussion about the exact timeframe for this impeachment resolution will be the -- give President Trump the dubious distinction of being the only American president to be impeached twice in history.

Now Nancy Pelosi, last night, discussed her concerns with this president, calling deranged and demanding, he immediately resign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), HOUSE SPEAKER: Well sadly the person who is reading the Executive Branch is a deranged, unhinged, dangerous President of the United States. And only a number of days until we can be protected from him. But, he has done something so serious that there should be prosecution against him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So the question is exactly how this process could play out. At the moment Democrats are very confident that they'll have a majority support to impeach the president.

This resolution that they're circulating behind the scenes has the support, co-sponsors of 215 House Democrats at the moment, they're just shy a majority of the House. They expect the votes will be there even the co-sponsors aren't there and probably some Republicans to join on along side them as well. But, there's hardly any time left to actually have a Senate trial.

So, this could get kicked into the beginning of the Biden Administration to have a trial of the former President Donald Trump and try to prevent him from running for office again, guys.

SCIUTTO: Yes, and James Clyburn raising the possibility of punting that trial perhaps after the president-elect's first hundred days in office. Let's talk about this impeachment article if we can.

As you mentioned Manu, it is a single article for incitement of insurrection, but in addition to the speech the president gave on January 6, it also cites his -- his previous and repeated false claims that we won this election and we won it by a landslide.

And also that call to Brand Raffensperger in Georgia to find enough votes to overturn the Georgia presidential election. So -- so, in terms of making the case they take this a little broader?

RAJU: Yes, they try to make the case that the insurrection started essentially after the election, when the president was lying to the American public to over -- give -- feeding disinformation that he actually won the election, his pressuring of local officials, state officials to try to change the outcome, the will of the voters, that all led to that scene on Wednesday, him inciting that riot that came here to Capitol Hill and led to the death of five people at least, including a U.S. Capitol police officer.

They're trying to make the case more broadly about all the president's actions from November 3 up until last Wednesday. Again, the question is will Republicans also join along in this effort, some of it open to the idea. Some have called on him to resign like Senator Pat Toomey of - and Senator Lisa Murkowski, but a lot of Republicans they're planning to side with the president particularly on the House side, so we'll see how this plays out because the president of course has been widely criticized about what he did last Wednesday even as Republicans have largely stood by the president for months here.

SCIUTTO: And as we note often on this program, two-thirds of Republican House members after that violent insurrection walked back in and voted to overturn the results of the election in Arizona and Pennsylvania. It's remarkable. Manu Raju, thanks very much. CNN's John Harwood joins us now from the White House. The president's going to speak today, condemn the violence, ask for a peaceful transition. What's he focused on, John?

JOHN HARWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: He's focused, Jim, on the harm he believes has been done to him by the decision from technology companies to eliminate his megaphone, the megaphone that he used to - in part to incite this insurrection. The president does not accept responsibility for what he's done. He's angry. He's still the President of the United States for nine more days. He's the most powerful man in the world, but he's filled with rage at what's happened to him.

So we don't know exactly in what form he's going to communicate his thoughts about big tech. We've seen a lot of Republicans whining in the same vein about losing Twitter followers. It's a remarkable scene, and one of the things that it tells you, Jim, is not only is the president sick, to a considerable degree the Republican Party is also sick, and you mentioned the large number of Republicans who voted to overturn those electoral college results. You had a very large number of Republicans before that who signed onto a preposterous lawsuit trying to throw out - filed by the state of Texas trying to throw out the electoral votes of other states.

And as a result you have very few Republicans actually speaking out against the president. A few, people like Pat Toomey who's retiring, not running for reelection in 2020, have called for the president to resign. And one of the things that's going to be illuminating about this impeachment vote that is due to come up in a couple of days is how many Republicans are going to be willing to step forward and condemn through this vote the president's conduct? It's not likely to be many, but it's likely to be some.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HARLOW: John Harwood, thank you for that reporting, and on that note let me bring in CNN Political Commentator, former Republican Senator form Arizona, Jeff Flake. Senator Flake, thank you for being here this morning. Considering what we just heard from our John Harwood and considering, Senator, that the morning - on Wednesday morning you wrote in The New York Times just hours before what we saw take place on Capitol Hill, "My fellow Republicans, Trump is destroying us." And you said, "Today the American people deserve to witness the majesty of a peaceful transfer of power just as I saw awe struck two decades ago." Can you believe what happened?

JEFF FLAKE (R), FORMER U.S. SENATOR: No. It was the most awful day I can remember. I was on Capitol Hill for 9/11. I was on the baseball field being shot at. I've, you know, been through a lot there, but I cannot imagine what those in the Capitol felt as I saw their own citizens, in some cases their own constituents storming the Capitol. It was an awful, awful day.

HARLOW: Newly-elected Republican member of Congress, Peter Meijer, writes this over the weekend. "Unless my party faces the truth of what happened and holds those responsible to account, we will never regain the public's trust and earn the honor of leading the nation forward." Do you agree with him? And if you do, what is - what is holding them to account? Does it mean expelling, you know, Senators Hawley and Cruz? That's been discussed. What is accountability for them?

FLAKE: Well I'm glad to see that the political marketplace is working out there with organizations, companies, individuals saying we're simply not giving anymore contributions to those who held up the election or tried to hold up or overturn the election. So that certainly has to happen, but those who are in leadership positions in particular in the House and Senate who went along with the president's falsehoods ought to be - ought to face consequences in terms of their own reelection and obviously immediately in terms of leadership positions that they might hold. So, I hope the party has a reckoning here.

I do feel -- and I've said this for a couple of years now after various events thinking this will finally wake some of my colleagues up as to who this man is and what we're doing to the party. I do feel that the events of last week have accelerated hopefully a march away from not just the president but away from Trumpism as well.

HARLOW: You do even though six senators and 138 members of the House still went back in that building in the middle of the night and refused to accept the results of the election?

FLAKE: Oh, I do. Believe me, I think that that's an awful thing but I do think as a whole the population of Republicans. Now, there are the subsets of a subset of a subset who vote in Republican primaries and what's what a lot of Republicans respond to with their inability to get away from the president.

But the broader population though I think saw the events of last week and said we can't go there. We've got to move away from the president. Obviously the president is going to gone. He'll be removed from the scene. I think that his influence will diminish I thought it would before this event. Just when you lose the trappings of office and the leverage of power and Trumpism requires some kind of swagger of winning which we haven't. We as Republicans lost the House of Representatives in the midterm.

We just lost control of the Senate. We've lost hundreds of legislative seats and state legislators nationwide. So, we've got to move ahead and move away from the president.

And I get the feeling and I had an experience just yesterday where one of my longtime supporters who had supported many of my campaigns during the past couple of years has been very critical of where I've been and very supportive of the president approached me and said, "that's it. I'm done."

And then -- so, that's anecdotal. There is still a lot of support for the president and his positions. But I do feel that last week was an event that will move people away.

HARLOW: Let's end on this because I will always remember what you said in 2018. It's when you sat down with 60 Minutes and you were leaving office. And here's what you said.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

FLAKE: There's no value to reaching across the aisle. There's no currency for that anymore. There's no incentive.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

HARLOW: There is no value, no political value to reaching across the aisle. Senator Flake, that was in 2018. If that was then, what about now, is it just worse now?

FLAKE: Well, now, one difference we'll have in 11 days time is a president who models better behavior in that regard. Joe Biden was in the Senate for 36 years. He knows how to reach across the aisle.

And you have a lot of my colleagues, former colleagues who want to legislate, who actually want to do want they were elected to do and have been tired of frankly just approaching the president's executive agenda. Judges and -- they want to legislate. So, I do think it will change but that has been the case over the past couple of years.

HARLOW: OK.

FLAKE: It used to get your (inaudible) by saying I've reached across the aisle and I'm bipartisan, now it just gets you a primary. That's been the case over the past year but I do think that that's going to change.

HARLOW: Let's hope it does. Former Senator Jeff Flake, thank you very much.

FLAKE: Thanks for having me on.

HARLOW: Jim.

SCIUTTO: Remarkable words there from a Republican. Almost the entire House Democratic Caucus supports impeaching President Trump now but how do they persuade Republicans who want to avoid an impeachment vote. I'm going to ask one member of Congress.

Plus, what if rioters wanted to do more than just break into the capitol, perhaps kidnap a lawmaker. There are alarming clues. We're going to have new details ahead into the investigation.

HARLOW: Also remember this is all happening in the middle of a tragedy on the health front. The coronavirus pandemic continues to overwhelm the nation, particularly California. CNN rides with an ambulance crew to see how they are helping the community while they're protecting themselves.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:19:00]

SCIUTTO: This is an alarming reality this week. Police departments across the country are now investigating to determine if some serving members of law enforcement were part of the crowd, the rioters that stormed the Capitol on Wednesday.

HARLOW: It's hard to believe, but they're having to look into it. Let's go back to your Crime and Justice Correspondent Shimon Prokupecz who joins us this morning. Good morning Shimon. Some law enforcement already looking at -- at termination. What -- I guess, what told them that this could be the case?

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Tips from anonymous folks who are seeing photos and videos circulating all across their TV screens. They're calling in these tips.

In fact, that's how the fire department in New York learned of perhaps some of their members being involved. There was tip that came to the FBI. And today, just a short time ago, the NYPD announcing that they too are investigating someone who may have been part of the riot.

Being present at that rally is one thing, but being a part of this mob that attacked the Capitol is a whole other thing.

[10:20:00]

So, now you have the NYPD, the fire department in New York. You have the Seattle Police Department announcing that they've put two officers on leave as they investigate their involvement, and there are smaller police departments all across the country looking at whether or not their members were part of this mob, and it is tips, Poppy and Jim, that are really what is forcing a lot of these investigations. SCIUTTO: The difference you bring up there, right, is, one, to go to the Trump protest. Another to as a member of law enforcement help illegally invade the Capitol, attack other members of law enforcement beyond tips. And we've all heard and I'm sure our viewers have heard the case of the guy taking a selfie with one of the protestors. There are other video clips. What degree of evidence is there that they actually participated in this?

PROKUPECZ: Well we've heard and we've seen stories I should say where people have indicated that members of law enforcement were inside the Capitol in some cases flashing their shields, their badges to some of the people inside there. The FBI is actively looking at some of that to see if there was any help from law enforcement, to see if off-duty law enforcement that was present there perhaps used their badges to try and get access to certain locations. You know, one of the things that we should not be lost from anyone is that a lot of police officers supported the president, right, and they were present at some of these rallies, and a lot of that had to do with the fact that the president was so supportive of them throughout the summer during a lot of the other protests and some of the unrest that we saw over the summer.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Well listen, supporting a political candidate's one thing. Taking part in illegal acts as a member of law enforcement is another. Shimon Prokupecz, thanks very much.

Well let's talk about the legal fallout from the chaos on Capitol Hill, legal liability. We're joined by defense attorney, former federal prosecutor, Shan Wu. Shan, good to have you on this morning. First, let's begin with the president, his children, his son, his lawyer Rudy Giuliani. They were there on January 6. They encouraged that mob to go to the Capitol, some in stronger terms than others. I mean, you had trial by combat I think was what Giuliani used, but what is the legal standard to charge say the president for encouraging the mob? What would a prosecutor like yourself, what tests would you have to meet?

SHAN WU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: You'd have to look at the specific language. I think that although Trump certainly had the intent to have them march, I think he would have legal defense as to whether he was encouraging them to do violence or not. Giuliani is on much weaker ground. I mean, using the word combat in that circumstance I think is going to be problematic for him. I think prosecutors are conservative. You know, that's to prove (ph) beyond reasonable doubt, so they're going to look at that very cautiously before they use the incite to riot charge.

HARLOW: I mean, looking at the article of impeachment that we just got during the show, they quote the president as saying if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore. I suppose they could say fight. Do they mean with their words versus physically? But still, I mean, it's not the direct word combat, but it's still quite a statement from the president. On the legal front of impeaching him again, do you - do we know constitutionally can they impeach the president after he leaves office or does the process at least need to begin as it seems to be this week before he's out? WU: I think it needs to begin. I mean, there is some discussion about this order (ph) they could continue it afterwards. I don't think there's anything that stops them from continuing that, and obviously the point of that would be not so much to remove him from office since he'd be out but rather to ban him from taking any kind of federal office again. So I think that can be done. I think they do need to commence it before he goes, although arguably you could do it afterwards. I think starting it the House in doing the article of impeachment it's very easy. That's like the charging document. It's getting the Senate trial done that I think that will be a challenge.

SCIUTTO: Shan, there was already speculation - actually we should call it expectation that the president might pardon himself. Prior to all this just to protect himself for any legal liability for anything or attempt to now becomes even more of a potential concern here. Tell our viewers whether that would hold water in particular for something like this, incitement to riot.

WU: I think it's not a question of just how awful the crime as he's pardoning himself for. I think it's just a question of whether the Justice Department or Biden's going to let that stand or not. It's the speculative, theoretical constitutional question of whether he can do it or not. It's not specifically in the Constitution, but if he does do that whether himself or stepping aside having Pence do it, I think it basically is an invitation to the department to challenge that question because frankly no self respecting prosecutor's going to let that stand that you're letting the criminal themselves pardon themselves.

[10:25:00]

I think if he does that it's an invitation to go ahead and prosecute and fight it.

SCIUTTO: Interesting.

HARLOW: Explain to us why you are worried about and think people should pay particular attention to a potential mass pardon of those who led that interaction on Capitol Hill but even killing Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick. Is a mass pardon for everyone who ascended on the capitol that day legal?

WU: It is legal as to the federal pardon and the reason I'm worried about that is his obvious message to them of quote, "we love you," etc cetera. They didn't fly the flag and have masks and the officer who died defending the Capitol.

I think the important part is we're seeing a national investigation going on by a necessity to support the federal charges. I think it's really important that they follow-up on that with actual state charges as well--

SCIUTTO: Yes.

WU: -- because those state charges can't be pardoned by Trump.

HARLOW: That's right. OK. Shan, thank you very much for being here and helping us understand what is just such uncharted territory.

House Democrats threatening President Trump with what would be a first ever second impeachment of a resident with just nine days left in his term. Coming up, we'll speak with one of the members of Congress sponsoring the article of impeachment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)